Gregarius » BetaNews.Com » février 24, 2010

BetaNews.Com (5 non lus)

Google's bad news deluge: Xerox sues, claims it borrowed query methods

Publié: février 24, 2010, 10:12pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

For any other company besides Google, a week like this would be interpreted by some in the press as the beginning of the end, and it's only Wednesday. However, an individual breakdown of every bad story, element by element, reveals the company may not be deluged so much by a hailstorm of controversy as a cavalcade of unfortunately simultaneous snowballs, none of which may end up leaving any lasting damage.
Last Friday, Xerox filed suit in US District Court in Delaware, claiming two counts of patent infringement against Google and Yahoo, and one count against Google's YouTube division. A scan of the complaint reveals an almost "boilerplate" document, making no arguments other than that its two patents cover types of functionality that the three named defendants willfully employed without negotiating with Xerox first.
The patents themselves are very explicit, and appear to deal with the very specific application of methods and even software, some of it bearing Xerox trademarks. Theoretically, such methods could be used in the dissemination of live repositories of information -- meta-documents comprised of information gleaned from multiple sources, as those sources are being published and indexed. Certainly, generating live pages of meta-documents are among the features that Google's AdSense platform and YouTube video platform, and Yahoo's contextual search and advertising platforms, perform. So in a very general sense, one could conclude there was a connection, and maybe someone should have looked up Xerox in Google's patent search.
But had that someone done so, she may also have discovered that the apparatus Xerox researchers described bears close resemblance to the type of document management system the patent was designed to protect, and the methods Xerox did not want to see other competitors lay claims on first.
"One aspect of the invention is based on the discovery that data on the use of documents stored in an enterprise document management system (EDMS) provides insight into the flow of knowledge within the enterprise," reads US Patent #6,236,994, which all three parties are accused of infringing upon. "This discovery avoids problems that arise in conventional document or knowledge management systems, where the flow of information must be rigorously characterized before or at the time the document is stored into the EDMS."
For decades, Xerox has been heavily involved in developing an exclusive method for quantifying aggregate data about how the information included in documents is used, and how that use evolves over time. That research is what has made Xerox' document management software so valuable over the years, and is one of the under-appreciated qualities of that company's hard work.
But it may be harder work for Xerox' attorneys to prove that YouTube, for example, produces aggregate data on how its videos are used, compiles workflow analyses, and generates new aggregate documents based on the results of those analyses. The precise pseudocode for that methodology comprises about four pages of the '994 patent; Xerox may need to demonstrate that YouTube, among others, followed essentially that same flowchart to do...whatever it is YouTube is supposed to have done with it.
The way Xerox' attorneys described YouTube's infringement upon the '994 patent sounds a lot more generalized: "YouTube makes and uses YouTube.com, a Web site for video hosting and sharing that integrates information related to videos with data from user reviews and ratings. YouTube performs all elements of the infringed claims of the '994 Patent by making and using YouTube.com."
The other patent under contention, #6,778,979, issued in 2004, covers a method for the automatic generation of queries -- essentially, ways in which information gleaned from a database can be compiled into a query that is then run to obtain more information. This patent is extraordinarily well illustrated, with 69 diagrams, most of which illustrate specific use-cases of Xerox' automatic query generation system put to use.
"Google AdSense and AdWords software automatically generate queries based on the content of Web pages to retrieve related advertisements," reads Xerox' complaint. Assuming that's correct, it may be difficult to prove that AdWords was specifically altered to utilize Xerox' 2004 methodology, especially since AdWords was launched in 2000.
Google has responded to various press sources today with a single sentence, saying Xerox' claims are without merit and the company will vigorously defend itself against them.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
New analytics software specifically targets software developers, beta testers

Publié: février 24, 2010, 9:00pm CET par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Download Concerity Analytics Free 1.0 Beta from Fileforum now.
Web developers have access to all sorts of information about the visitors to their sites: IP address, operating system, browser type, and so forth. With solutions like Omniture's SiteCatalyst, for example, developers have access to an even greater depth of information about visitor behavior that they can use to improve their product.
For desktop software developers, however, these kind of analytics are not as readily available, and are frequently limited to crash reports for the purpose of fixing bugs.
Last month, Utah-based software company Concerity launched its own Analytics Platform, directed toward software developers. The toolkit provides software vendors with a more granular look at how their software is being used by embedding an analytics runtime into it. The end user can opt in to anonymously share his information with the developer, and then the developer can see how the software is being used, what type of machines it's being used on, see which features are the highest priority, and so forth.
Today Betanews proudly announces that our Fileforum is the exclusive host of Concerity Analytics Free, the freeware version targeted at independent software vendors. The beta of version 1.0 is available now.
Implementing the tracker in your software only takes a couple of lines of code, and then information coming from users is sent to the cloud-based Concerity Analytics Results Dashboard, where the data are available as graphs, charts, and tag clouds.
What can users of the free version expect to track in their software? Concerity Analytics Free grabs a profile of the user which includes his CPU, graphics processor, RAM, storage, operating system, and screen resolution, where he is geographically located, when the application is used, and whether it was closed nicely by the user or it crashed.
Matt Cupal, CEO of Concerity shared some of the inspiration behind the product: "One year ago, I ran a company called Sorenson Media, which makes desktop video compression apps. When we'd try to come up with new feature sets, we'd get pretty frustrated. We'd do surveys of customers and sales guys, then we'd do a traditional beta model where 300 people would test the new version. But we weren't getting tons of useful feedback, we needed more analytic information to base feature sets upon."
"Beta testing is certainly different today than it was in the past," Cupal continued. "There's better recognition, and users are more open to supplying their information. Ten years ago, it would be a hard issue to fly because of privacy concerns. People would be more likely to say 'Of course you can't see what I'm doing!' But now, we do it a lot more because the products improve more when you share more data."
We spoke yesterday with one of Concerity Analytics' beta testers, 3D machining software company FeatureCAM. Vice President of Engineering, Tom McCollough.
"Like a lot of other software companies, we release an annual version of our product and support it with monthly updates. Since the annual versions have the most changes, they also invariably have the most crashes," McCollough told us. "We're using Concerity as a way to measure the reliability of each version, and we're shooting to have crashes go down with each service pack release."
Pricing for the final release of Concerity Analytics will be made available when the product is generally released next month. A beta of the commercial edition, released last month, is available from Concerity's Web site.
[FULL SEC DISCLOSURE: Betanews operates Fileforum, which is the exclusive host of Concerity Analytics Free software.]
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
EU denies Google is under investigation, early evidence appears weak

Publié: février 24, 2010, 7:03pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

This morning, despite clearly and pointedly phrased headlines such as this one proclaiming that the European Commission had opened an antitrust investigation into Google, the Commission released a statement this morning saying no such investigation was launched.
"The Commission has not opened a formal investigation for the time being," reads this morning's EC statement. "As is usual when the Commission receives complaints, it informed Google earlier this month and asked the company to comment on the allegations." No further information is being provided to the press on this matter -- again, as per protocol, because no investigation has begun.
Instead, according to the EC, the Commission received three formal complaints about the company's conduct, and as per protocol, forwarded the complaints to Google. The difference between an investigation and an inquiry, in this context, is that an investigation seeks information to build a specific case against its subject. No such case exists against Google, although it is possible that Google's response to the EU could trigger the launch of a formal investigation. That has not happened yet.
Google was under no obligation to come forward with details of the allegations against it, but it did so anyway: Two of the complaints come from firms with either direct Microsoft backing or ties to organizations funded by Microsoft, and both operate shopping sites. Ciao, a German-based (not Italian) shopping service recently purchased by Microsoft and integrated into its British and German Bing services; and Foundem, the proprietor of a British-based shopping site and the member of an organization called Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace that claims funding by Microsoft, have both issued formal complaints that Google downplays search results that lead to their sites, in Google results. This according to Google's assessment of the complaints in its blog post this morning; no other statements on the matter have been released by the parties involved.
Foundem's situation first came to light last August, when an article in the UK publication The Guardian profiled its founder, Richard Wray. In that article, Wray claimed that its service was being virtually ignored by Google. Foundem is essentially an aggregator of price comparisons for computers, appliances, other consumer market items, and real estate; as is Ciao, whose British service now bears some resemblance to Bing Shopping in the US.
Typically, search engines that have their own shopping services do not feature the aggregate pricing assessments of other search engines with their own shopping services; for example, Bing Shopping does not feature results from Google Product Search. For competitors to Google Product Search, this may be a problem.
Google did not say much about the complaint from French-based legal research firm eJustice.fr, other than to say its complaint paralleled that of Foundem. That site describes itself as a professionally researched search engine that performs its own assessment of the relevance of legal material it has indexed based not on popularity, like other (unnamed) search engines, but upon direct relevance to the case or subject of law being studied. The site prides itself on providing fewer, better, search results, indexed over 100 sites, in an effort led by Dominique Barella, former president of France's union of magistrates, and a deciding judge in many technology-related cases there over the years. For example, in 2005, Judge Barella was under the opinion that unauthorized sharing of MP3 files may not be a criminal offense on the same order as theft.
In an interview published today by the French news site Eco89, Barella stated he provided the European Commission with a 40-page complaint, complete with technical documentation and evidence, which he says proves that Google blatantly and willfully delisted eJustice from its search results, not in terms of searching for "eJustice" but specifically with respect to results that point to eJustice's index. As an example for Eco89, he stated that Google doesn't point to eJustice in searches for rental contract cases. He complained that Google told him, not in writing but verbally, that Google would index eJustice's search results if eJustice could provide them in a manner accessible via Google's algorithms.
Making eJustice comply with Google's pattern, Barella argued, is unfair because the two sites are search engines, and are therefore competitors.
It is not impossible for Google to index search results of other Web sites' search results. But typically, Google is only able to find the queries themselves through links to those sites on the pages it indexes. Those links tend not to reside on the most popular pages, and Google ranks pages -- as eJustice's own "About Us" page notes -- by popularity as well as relevance. If, by eJustice's own account, it indexes less popular, more relevant, sources, then by Google's publicly known formula for assessing page rank, it may not score enough points by its own design.
The mistaken assessment of this morning's inquiry as an investigation may have been exacerbated by Google's own account of the affair this morning. First, senior competition counsel Julia Holtz referred to the matter as "scrutiny" -- a term often applied to investigations. Later, she mentioned that Ciao's complaints were originally handled by the German competition authority, referring to the matter as a "case" that was now "transferred to Brussels," the seat of the EC. The EC is denying that this is a case in the formal sense. Since there is no investigation taking place after all by the EC, there's no timetable for the next step in this inquiry.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Americans don't give a damn about MIDs

Publié: février 24, 2010, 4:49pm CET par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

We have a problem understanding devices that live outside of the commonly accepted "three screens" model. It's the model that has been pushed by big companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Nielsen, and Microsoft which says that our main windows into content consumption are the TV, PC, and mobile device.
If a device's functionality falls somewhere between one of these three screens, it gets marginalized and written off as something that doesn't address a specific need.
That's actually one of the first criticisms from US consumers reacting to the Apple iPad.
It is a device that we "don't need," and is simply another way to sell iTunes content, some said. People could not look at the iPad and instantly state its principal, core functionality like they could for the rest of Apple's product line. They could say, for example, that the iPod is a music player, the iPhone is a mobile phone, and AppleTV is a connected set-top box.
And while all of those devices offer a lot more than those basic descriptions tell you, at their heart, they have a single purpose, an identity. The iPad didn't immediately click with that identity.
Even Apple CEO Steve Jobs marginalized the iPad as "something between a laptop and a smartphone," which focuses on functionality already delivered by the other devices like browsing the Web and consuming streaming media. "It's going to have to be better at these kind of tasks than a laptop or a smartphone, otherwise, it has no reason for being," Jobs said in January.
That's a pretty damning set of guidelines. But it may be better to wedge a new device in between two of our three screens than to give it a vague, almost purposeless description like Intel has done with the Mobile Internet Device profile and Microsoft has done with the Origami/Ultra Mobile PC (UMPC) profile.
When these device classes premiered in 2006, Microsoft didn't even tell us what made something an Origami device, much less how they were supposed to fit into our lives. The Origami campaign slogan was literally "What is Origami?" and it actually tried to make its case on the premise that there was no case to make -- you fill in the blank.
An early prototype Origami UMPC device running Windows XP, believed to have been manufactured by Samsung. [Photo credit: Wolfgang Gruener for TG Daily, 2006]
But Microsoft's description of Origami PCs is familiar: a device with "a powerful processor, a big, bright display, easy-to-use input options, and support for the latest connectivity standards...The UMPC offers a display of 4-7 inches and touch capabilities, all in a package that weighs less than 2 pounds." All this was expected in a package that cost between $599-$799.
Why, that sounds just like the iPad, doesn't it?
So what, exactly, made Origami the crashing failure that it was, dubbed by one publication, "The biggest flop since Windows ME?"
The problem was not simply that Origami, or UMPC, or whatever you want to call it, didn't have a clear purpose (or even a clear name). It was too heavy, too resource-constrained to run a desktop OS, its battery life was too short, and its input method was weak.
Things haven't fared any better for the device category dubbed MID by Intel. Instead of being declared a total flop, manufacturers have gradually converged that platform with mobile phones, while Intel -- which at one time actively avoided the term 'netbook' -- has now actively abandoned it altogether. Intel is now not only free, but content, to embrace MID's successor, complete with its own device architecture (Atom) and operating system (MeeGo, formerly Moblin).
Back in 2008, comScore said that smartphones were actually cutting into the low-cost computing segment populated by netbooks and MIDs.
"Smartphones, and the iPhone in particular, are appealing to a new demographic and satisfying demand for a single device for communication and entertainment, even as consumers weather the economy by cutting back on gadgets," comScore said.
The very things that were supposed to make MIDs stand out -- their lower cost and easy Web browsing experience -- were being squeezed out by smartphones that were cheaper, more versatile, and just as enjoyable to browse with. Why would a consumer pay the the same price for a MID with only Wi-Fi that they would for an unlocked top-of-the-line smartphone?
Major mobile phone maker Nokia, which has been dabbling in MIDs for more than five years, has nearly drawn its efforts in MIDs to a close. In 2005, the company launched the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet, with a 4.1" touchscreen and and the Linux-based maemo MID platform (which was merged into Moblin earlier this month). Looking at it now, the 770 (pictured right) isn't really not that far off from a smartphone, except that it's a bit chunky around the middle.
Four years later, Nokia slimmed down its MID profile, shrunk the touchscreen to just under 4 inches, and equipped it with cellular radios. The N900, which will be the last device to run on the maemo MID platform, is for all intents and purposes a smartphone.
When maemo is finally merged with (read: "consumed by") Moblin (pictured above) in the new MeeGo platform, the result will be an open, Linux-based operating system designed for a number of device classes, like smartphones, netbooks, notebooks, and embedded environments. Nokia's MID-centric operating system is marked for death.
And yet, just when it looks like the MID is dying, there are some who argue that it's only just now reaching the point where it could break through in the Americas.
Inbrics has made $170 million selling mobile devices in its home country of South Korea, and it has made impressive appearances both at CES and GSMA Mobile World Congress this year, showing off a device that looks exactly like an Android superphone, but without a cellular voice module. Just like Nokia's N900, the Inbrics M1 Identity is a MID in function but a smartphone in form.
"We expect the demand for MIDs in North America to rise at the end of 2010 and into 2011," Inbrics' chief marketing officer Bobby Cha told Betanews. "All of the major wireless carriers have a plan that includes a MID separate from their phones."
The M1 Identity is an iPod-thin device that looks pretty much like a high-end mobile phone, with a 3.7" capacitive AMOLED touchscreen, a full QWERTY keyboard, 800MHz applications processor, 16GB of memory, running Android 1.5 with its own custom UI that includes an in-depth home media controller poetically called the "3 Screens Manager."
Cha says the key to MID adoption will come as Americans change the way they interact with their phones. "In Asia, the typical user doesn't hold their phone up to their ear. They hold it in front of their face...We have the innate ability to change the way the consumer interacts with their content."
Laptop Magazine ran an article last week called "Do Americans Really Care About MIDs?" which examined a crop of Mobile Internet Devices that are expected this year.
I was honestly taken aback. I thought the answer was pretty clear by now. The only MIDs Americans care about are smartphones.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Google is a dangerous monopoly -- more than Microsoft ever was

Publié: février 24, 2010, 8:09am CET par Joe Wilcox
By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

The European Union's preliminary antitrust investigation of Google isn't the least surprising. But the timing is shockingly foreshadowing.
In December 2007, when Google announced the DoubleClick acquisition, I blogged: "The Google Monopoly Begins." I asserted that the acquisition would change everything about Google's search and advertising dominance and perceptions about the company's growing status as gatekeeper to all online information. The preliminary antitrust investigation comes as Google makes major changes to DoubleClick with hopes of boosting its display advertising business. The changes mark the final Googlefication of DoubleClick -- or the realistic, final integration of the acquisition into Google.
I don't believe in coincidence. More than two years ago, I asserted that DoubleClick marked the real beginning of the Google monopoly. The same week Google begins to flex that monopoly, the European Union starts informally investigating the information company. The European Competition Commission is taking seriously three competitor complaints, made by, according to a Google blog post: "UK price comparison site, Foundem, a French legal search engine called ejustice.fr and Microsoft's Ciao! from Bing."
For clarification, after I posted, the European Commission released statement: "The Commission has not opened a formal investigation for the time being." Right. It's preliminary, subject first to Google's response about the three complaints. In the Google blog post, Julia Holtz, senior competition counsel, asserted: "We will be providing feedback and additional information on these complaints," presumably to the European Commission. Microsoft's antitrust problems in Europe started in the late 1990s from a single complaint made by Sun Microsystems (now absorbed into Oracle).
Coincidence or not, the European Union is starting too late. Too much has changed in Google's favor since December 2007. The acquisition should never have been approved by European regulators. The mess they'll be cleaning up is one they helped create. I blogged 26 months ago:
The Google monopoly could be prevented, just as the Microsoft monopoly could have been. To be fair, monopolies aren't necessarily bad, and they certainly aren't illegal in the United States. But Google is positioned to fulfill the decade-old predictions made about Microsoft but as a more dangerous and consumer harming monopoly. Google's monopoly would be over information, and there is just too much opportunity for abuse. DoubleClick significantly cranks up the potential volume of abuse.
Much has changed; since the DoubleClick acquisition was announced, Google:
- Released the Chrome Web browser, which in less than 18 months reached version 5 beta.
- Launched the Android mobile operating system, which sales rose 961 percent year over year in 2009.
- Announced development of a new operating system -- Chrome OS -- for mobile devices, including netbooks.
- Negotiated a deal (now being scrutinized) for making millions of books freely available online via Google search.
- Increased search share on mobile devices, bolstered by new location-based search, local search, mapping and other services.
- Erected a mobile applications stack, by leveraging together Android, Chrome, disparate Google Web applications and search services.
That's a short, condensed list. But their meaning simply stated:
1) Google is expanding a monopoly over Web search and arguably trying to extend it into several adjacent markets, including display advertising, desktop operating systems, mobile operating systems, mobile Web applications and Web browsers. Microsoft's antitrust problems started with leveraging its Intel-based desktop operating system monopoly into the market for Web browsers.
2) Google's free business model is disrupting many, major established informational industries by reducing their contents' value to zero -- subsidized by search and adjacent services from which Google profits. While analyst estimates vary, the most reliable put Google's online advertising share at about 90 percent in the European Union.
3) Recent Google activities raise serious questions about trust, such as Buzz privacy settings. Can Google be trusted with all this information? Buzz demonstrates Google's increased willingness to put its interests ahead of customers. Likewise, ongoing tweaks to the search and keyword business model, technology or terms of agreement put Google's interests before partners.
A Monopoly Matures
In my December 2007 post declaring the Google monopoly, I gave five reasons it matters. I'll reiterate four of them here:
Google is the information gatekeeper. The US Justice Department went after Microsoft in May 1998 partly out of fear the company would become the Internet's gatekeeper. That never happened with Microsoft, but it most certainly is occurring with Google. Its business is all about profiting from information. For years, I've argued that Google is not a search company. Google is an information company, with search being a means to an end -- the end being information around which the company sells keywords and advertising. Google's search share reaches 70-80 percent or more in some geographies, according to combined analyst reports.
Google's business is rife with conflict-of-interest. Google provides through search the road leading to a destination, then profits from many of the businesses established around it. Additionally, as I explained 26 months ago:
Google doesn't just offer search, but advertising, keyword search and demographic services around information and businesses pay for this stuff. DoubleClick will greatly enhance the latter activity. Marketers are hungry for demographic information, and they're willing to pay for it. Google provides the door, checks who's coming inside and can pass that information onto marketing paparazzi. The temptation to mine the information will be huge, and that temptation will increase as Google matures, its growth slows and its stock falls to earth.
Google leaches off the good work of others -- for free. As I explained 26 months ago:
Google produces nothing. Shall I repeat that statement? The company's core business is about search and advertising, which relies on the content of other people and businesses. Google doesn't own the information from which it makes nearly all its revenue. Google is the middleman of the information, which it takes for free. At least Microsoft produces software and makes money off the licensing. Microsoft owns what it sells, but not Google.
Google abuses the intellectual property rights of others. "Google's information grubbing ways come without any asking permission," I wrote in December 2007. "In one sense, people want their Web sites to be found, for information to be mined. But they're not compensated for something for which Google makes oodles."
Much has changed -- for the worse -- since Google announced the DoubleClick acquisition. A late-2009 Fair Syndication Consortium study found that over one 30-day period 75,195 Websites published unlicensed content lifted from newspapers. Additionally, 112,000 unlicensed "full copies of U.S. newspaper articles were found on sites across the Internet." The profit motive: Search-driven revenue, with Google accounting for "53 percent of the total monetization." Interestingly, "38 percent of the sites were ranked in the top 100,000 most trafficked sites." Google's business model essentially allows -- and even encourages -- further intellectual property abuse.Better stated: Stealing.
Wrapping up, Google is a dangerous monopoly. Being a monopoly isn't illegal in the United States, although in Europe it seemingly is so (because of weight given to competitor complaints). Being dangerous doesn't necessarily mean acting dangerously. But the potential is there. How dangerous a company do you see Google -- or not? Please answer in comments.
Some related posts putting the Google monopoly in context:
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010